Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Wednesday, 2 March 2016

FLEXCIT Application: 3. Fisheries Outcomes

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

  1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
  2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
  3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
  4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
  5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
  6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
  7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
  8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
  9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty
To recap we have correctly described the problem and it's correct context. We've then looked a the solution that draws away FROM the problem and now look at where/what we are transitioning TO: The Outcomes.

How do we come to outcomes? Quoting the Fisheries Green paper by Owen Paterson above:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

We have a true competition of ideas, the use of scientific method and the coherent integration of all dependent parties. This is the effective outcome that is better than the problem from which we desire to remove if we find the means to make it possible.

You can see that by looking at some of the best cases of Fisheries Management Systems from around the world, lessons can be learnt and applied, successfully. However they can only do this if the UK has Fisheries Policy Control restored to it's government in service of it's people and their ownership of their own resources: Themselves and their nation!

For example using the summary of the above paper on such policy proposals:-
"From that experience, backed by extensive discussions with scientists, experts, fishermen and environmentalists, we have devised a policy framework tailored to suit the specific requirements of the UK 
It is based on the following principles":
  • Effort control based on “days at sea” instead of fixed quotas
  • A ban on discarding commercial species
  • Permanent closed areas for conservation
  • Provision for temporary closures of fisheries
  • Promotion of selective gear and technical controls
  • Rigorous definition of minimum commercial sizes
  • A ban on industrial fishing
  • A prohibition of production subsidies
  • Zoning of fisheries
  • Registration of fishing vessels, skippers and senior crew members
  • Measures to promote profitability rather than volume
  • Effective and fair enforcement

 It's clear to see from this map that the UK Fisheries Zones are enormously important Policy Competence for the UK to manage and govern responsibly and productively

The objective of this blog is to summarize and not "rehearse" nor "rehash" argument without attempting to provide more perspectives and alternative ways of combining and organizing information. So more of the above can be read via the particular paper quoted.

Here there's something worth pointing out: We need Policy Control returned to our government. But that government also needs to be Self-Governing. What does that mean? Most arguments take this to mean:-

Sovereignty = Self-Governing + Policy Control

In short-hand I would argue. Here we then see that this headline container of "Sovereignty" vs Supranationalism shapes so much of the arguments. Our Prime Minister David Cameron on this subject:-

David Cameron: "You have an illusion of sovereignty but you don't have power"

A Great Deception or An Illusion of Sovereignty?

 ~~ Thought Exercise Intermission ~~

This is one of the almost classic examples of when you know someone is either lying or deceiving (Tony Blair) but you can't necessarily explain how. To suggest that the UK must give up Sovereignty to have power is actually telling us how Mr. Cameron views the world and it's that the UK/"you" means those in charge of the people of the UK - not the people themselves. Now this minor intermission, is worth a pause: Repeat that phrase to yourself several times by rereading it and apply it as sort of "interpretation filter" the next numerous occasions you happen to be listening to a politician involved in a senior capacity in our own Westminster Parliament and note if this is the filter their own mental models tend to hint at: How they really see themselves: As masters or as servants of the British people?
Fortunately we can rely again on John Ashworth to clear up this question of Sovereignty and define our REAL PREDICAMENT and hence allow us to depart from Babel-17 - finally after 4 detailed blogs.

There is a massive difference between loss of sovereignty, and what has actually happened. Our Westminster Parliament has “lent” sovereignty to the European Union. We start with the classic definition of sovereignty given by A. V. Dicey in his “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution”:
  • “The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that ‘Parliament’ has ‘the right to make or unmake any law whatever”.
This means that Parliament exercised its sovereignty in passing the European Communities Act 1972. By doing so, Parliament — not the EU, not the European Court of Justice, but Parliament — decided to accept the obligations of EU membership for the UK. Parliament has continued to exercise its sovereignty in passing the legislation necessary to implement every EU amending treaty since the Single European Act 1986.

Therefore the UK Parliament is and remains sovereign. That is not affected one millimetre or one inch by the Lisbon treaty. As our own courts have ruled, by Lord Justice Laws:-
  • “The fundamental legal basis of the UK’s relationship with the EU rests with the domestic not the European legal powers.”
John Ashworth makes the product of understanding our Sovereignty very clear: "We cannot change European Law."
This, however, is exactly what Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to do and explains why on becoming party leader he dumped the policy of returning fisheries to national control and why before this, he had been so opposed to Michael Howard’s letter outlining the course of using the supremacy of parliament to obtain national control of fisheries, because he has no intention of using the British legal order.

To quote David Howarth again: it is of our own doing that we are in this club. (The EU) While we are in the club, we are bound by its rules. If we object to the rules, we can leave the club, but we cannot ourselves, by ourselves, change those rules—they can be changed only according to the rules of that club.

"To get back up to the shining world from there; My guide and I went into that hidden tunnel; . . .Where we came forth, and once more saw the stars." ~ Dante Alighieri: The Divine Comedy - Inferno Canto XXXIV:70-139 The Poets leave The Nine Circles of Hell

What is so interesting is that here with Fisheries we have the echo of the greater argument with which not only the details of a specific policy are in harmony with but also the entire philosophical principles and derivations from such principles or axioms of argument themselves when we now return to the present and see for ourselves The Great Deception in full operation via our own Prime Minister:-

Politicians: Ahead of the Law (for now...)

Dr. RAE North has suggested that what is needed is a Positive Vision, an offer that is worth travelling through that dark tunnel or across that bridge: What lies beyond? It is very easy to get bogged down by the deceptions and lose the vision. But if we have not lost our Sovereignty what are we to gain from leaving?

So hopefully we've concluded that via the European Communities Act 1972 we have "lent" our Fisheries Policy competence and hence self-governance to the EU as per the above applicable to the UK. We've decided that for this policy there is a problem and we have identified the solution to remove that problem: So what does the Outcome look like? In detail looking at the summaries provided we want to separate the Political Agenda of the EU (Supranationalism) from the Technical and Scientific Frameworks in accordance with good Self-Governance.

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

  • Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. 
  • an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union [COM(2007) 575 
  • Towards the integration of maritime surveillance: A common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain [COM(2009) 538
  • Developing the international dimension of the Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union [COM(2009) 536
  • Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean [COM(2009) 466
  • “Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy: Towards best practice in integrated maritime governance and stakeholder consultation” [COM(2008) 395
  • Recommendation 2002/413/EC - Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe

Some of the integration measures here will help with cooperation practically so they are positive, but where they are political they are perhaps negative as we have seen. Effectively leaving the EU is removing the "Ever Closer Union" political attribution but keeping the cooperative trading and conservation agendas. Let's think about these as the source of an alternative positive oucome or vision:-

 We've decided we can do a much better job ourselves under our own policy control!

And here is the problem as John Ashworth has remarked: We have to swallow the entire EU acquis including Fisheries and the rules therein and this is why this policy has not improved because of our own government.

If we look at the EU's Management of Fisheries we can do a better job ourselves, but secondly if we look further at the Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation of Marine Ecosystems, which John Ashworth comments on very succinctly in how they essentially work, we see the EU is taking it's lead from:-

Target 6: addressing the global biodiversity crisis

The EU must step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss by meeting the commitments made at the 10th Conference of Parties (COP10) to the 
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which took place in Nagoya in 2010. During this conference, the EU committed to:

achieving the goals set by the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;

implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (ABS Protocol); and

mobilising additional resources to finance the challenge of protecting biodiversity world-wide.
Secondly it seems the specific functions that are mutually beneficial perhaps between the EU and European Nations not in the in this policy area:-
Then the UK would still contribute and collaborate fully with anyway. Other bodies such as:-
"OSPAR is the mechanism by which 15 Governments & the EU cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic."
"KIMO is your local government voice on marine pollution. KIMO engages with the most serious environmental threats using practical, diplomatic and research based approaches."

Outside the EU would equally be involved with the UK.

The picture is a merging of the Global bodies and specialisms with the local bodies and specialism, effectively and removing the excesses and inefficiencies of centralized government where this is negative in this area. In another EU document on this subject:

"In particular, with regard to the regional conventions, their long track record of scientific and technical competence and ability to act as a bridge with non-EU countries will make them invaluable partners in delivering the EU Strategy. With regard to the existing institutional and legal arrangements at an international/global level (e.g. IMO, UNCLOS) EU policy will be developed within the context of the Green Paper on Maritime Policy."
In particular:

"Community participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs)"

Given the size of the UK's Fisheries more direct specialism and expertise and collaboration in this sphere would seem very productive as per Owen Paterson's Fisheries paper we already mentioned:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

As per the link above on RFO's they in turn are influenced by other global bodies such as FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Then looking at Deep-sea Fish Stocks there is collaboration between an international organization and an EU one:-

 When David Cameron says there's an "illusion of Sovereignty" vs Power (for business in the example he gave) if we compare with Fisheries it's quite clear that the UK gains far more local and global power outside the EU! We remove the problem and additionally have a positive vision of an outcome in collaborating and sharing expertise with global bodies removed of political pollution.

Moving away from the management of Fisheries and into the Commercial Trade Industry for Fisheries, taking Norway as an example outside the EU on Fisheries influence, and now using Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and compare this with the EU's: EU market for fishery and aquaculture products:-

 In FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.1 Replacement and removal of existing law Dr. RAE North provides a summary of the law the UK operates under via domestic and EU sources:-

 What we're seeing therefore is the entire argument about "power" as David Cameron calls it is about the RULES we impose on ourselves and how these are developed and by whom and how we agree to accept them or otherwise. In Fisheries Outcomes we've already seen that this EU Law has some major components:-
  • Some is not specific to the UK
  • Some of it is engendered with the principles of the EU: "Ever Closer Union"
  • Some of it is from global sources who are the specialist in making it.
  • Community Law takes precedence over Domestic Law which applies to all members and limits members equally according to "Community Rules" applied equally or equivalently.
With respect to the above market for Fisheries there is a mismatch between the regulatory requirements for example with food products (Horsemeat) and criminal activity which is based on National enforcement of standards. Secondly there is a "Two-Tier Regulation" System argument that fails to acknowledge that standards are increasingly being set at global levels for convergence eg WTO. Dr. RAE North remarks in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 10.1: The EU Role In Global Governance:-
"Nevertheless,  despite  the activity  of  the EU  at  global  level,  there  is  a perverse effect  arising  from  globalisation.  As  more  and  more  issues  are addressed  at global  level,  the  EU  is  losing control  over  its  own regulatory  agenda."
"More than 80 percent of the EEA acquis (and therefore the EU's Single Market legislation) falls  within  the ambit  of existing international  organisations and  is thus potentially amenable to global regulation. In   terms   of   detail,   over   33   percent   of   the acquis comprises "technical regulations,  standards,  testing  and  certification".  Much  of  this  is  implemented through standards bodies which will eventually emerge as ISO standards."
Further reference with direct respect to Norway: Norway has no influence? Let's now take a look at Fisheries in this respect to Norway now the wider picture scene is set:-

 So according to Mr. Bjorn Knudtsen he and his nation Norway are ALREADY in the situation we've decided might be hypothetically desirable for the UK in this particular case for Fisheries Policy. We do not need to deliberate, we can decide DECIDEDLY as per international rules on food "Codex was the "top table" and evidently the source of expertise of technical considerations.

This highlighted section is the argument we've been trying to elucidate all this time for the effect that separating EU Supranational Politics from UK Politics (Self-Governance) and hence UK Policy Control (Competence).

We see that Norway has been "from inception to the final formulation of rules" been involved "at every step of the process".

Here encapsulated into Fisheries Policy we have our Positive Outcome!

Norway has no influence?

"Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies few have ever heard of, where the EU takes our seat and negotiates on our behalf. Norway is fully engaged in the process before it gets anywhere near the EU. They are at the top tables with full rights of veto.

 Abstraction of Outcomes:-

  1. Specific Policy requirements for the UK Fisheries are needed at Local level.
  2. These cannot be "reformed" inside the EU due to the nature of the working of the Supranational nature of it's rules system in service to Supranational political destination.
  3. This is especially adverse for the UK which has extensive Fisheries national resource and has the knowledge via comparing globally to produce the best outcomes for policy superior to the EU.
  4. The argument concerning Supranationalism for Sovereignty is a false dilemma. It's exchanging Supranationalism for Intergovernmentalism and Sovereignty is better served by this outcome or paradigm shift!
  5. The "emergence" of this results also indicates a by-product advantage: We can cut down on the enormity of deception enacted without checks and balances to their egregious behaviour of our politicians and leadership against the Sovereignty of the British People: Public Enemy Number One: David Cameron can be removed and the source of so much confusion; it's head chopped off.
  6. When we break down the EU Legal instruments we see that global bodies are just as influential and increasingly so on Fisheries Management and Conservation as well as Products and Marketing standards of Fish produce eg Codex.
  7. Secondly in areas where it makes regional sense the UK can still form positive partnerships with the EU which is complementary to the UK regaining seats at the real "top tables" of global standards and regulations setting and making bodies.
  8. We see that removing the EU specific political legal instruments will likely lead to stronger scientific input into our policies in the case of Fisheries used to exemplify here.
  9. This trend is quantifiable given 80-90% of EEA acquis has it's origins in such global bodies. Again the EEA acquis split with the Single Market shows that these are predominantly of a "technical nature" as opposed to forming a hidden "political agenda" eg "Community Waters/Fleet" etc.
  10. Through Dr. RAE North's research on regulations great challenges are found to realigning here and reforming conditions so that world trade can be boosted.
  11. This evidence is already extant with Norway being an exemplar bona fide case study for direct comparison.
  12. Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies indicates that Fisheries is far from being alone or exceptional example but rather a very clear example of the general trend.